Is it just me, again?

[Richard Gaskin]

J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 13/04/2013, at 9:53 AM, "Cal Horner" <calhorner at xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems something is askew.
>
> Think about it like this. You've written a big commercial software
> program and are selling it successfully. It brings in money. You've
> protected your intellectual property by password protecting the stacks,
> so that no one can read your code by looking at it in a text editor.
>
> Let's say LiveCode's OSS is fully open with no restrictions. That means
> your code is exposed because it can't be protected. Your neighbor buys
> one copy of your app, learns the password algorithms from the OSS
> version of LiveCode, uses that to unlock your password, sees all your
> code, copies your work, and begins selling it as a competing product.
>
> Not so good.
>
> To prevent that, the OSS version contains no password algorithms. The
> public can't see how it works, and commercial software remains
> protected. But because there are no password algorithms in it, the OSS
> version can't open protected stacks. The code to do that just isn't in
> there.
>
> That's why your plugins won't open in community LiveCode. But many
> vendors have chosen to release both open and closed versions of their
> plugins. You need to ask them if they're planning to do that.

That's a very good description of the mechanics of password protection, 
but the principle behind it is even simpler:

Concealing source code is logically incompatible with a license that 
requires disclosure of the source code.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys